iii
DOKUZ EYLÜL UNIVERSITY
GRADUATE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL SCIENCES DEPARTMENT OF INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS PROGRAM MASTER’S THESIS
POLITICAL LIBERALIZATION IN EGYPT: THE
IMPACT OF EXTERNAL ACTORS
Erkan OKALAN
Supervisor
Assist. Prof. Dr. Müge AKNUR
iii
DECLARATION
I hereby declare that this master’s thesis titled as “Political Liberalization in Egypt: The Impact of External Actors” has been written by myself in accordance with the academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that all materials benefited in this thesis consist of the mentioned resources in the reference list. I verify all these with my honor.
Date ..../..../2012
Erkan OKALAN
iv
ABSTRACT Master’s Thesis
Political Liberalization in Egypt: The Impact of External Actors Erkan OKALAN
Dokuz Eylül University Graduate School of Social Sciences Department of International Relations
International Relations Program
Among the factors such as political culture (including Islam), civil society, and political economy that both enhance and hinder the political liberalization of Egypt, the external actors namely, the USA and the EU seem to play a significant role in this process. Although both actors through the aid programs, bilateral agreements, direct grant programs, partnership initiatives, international financial institutions, association agreements, action plans, and neighborhood policies seem to be working very hard to promote political liberalization and democratization in Egypt, they keep failing in this process.
Actually, rather than promoting political liberalization in Egypt, by hindering the process, they are enhancing the political de-liberalization in the country. Why do the USA and the EU despite their enthusiastic efforts to enhance political liberalization in Egypt do not succeed? –is the main question this research. In an attempt to resolve this question the thesis will analyze the issue through two approaches of the comparative politics, the structural approach and the rational choice theory. The thesis will first analyze the structure of the aids given by the USA, particularly the USAID (United States Agency for International Development) and the structure of the EU’s decision-making mechanisms by concentrating on the conflicting foreign policies of the member states. Then it will analyze the rational choices made by the two main actors, the USA and the EU—how they are making their choices among a group of alternatives given to them.
v
Keywords: Egyptian politics, political liberalization, democratization, democracy promotion, external actors, EU, USA, structure, rational choice.
vi
ÖZET Yüksek Lisans Tezi
Mısır’daki Siyasi Liberalleşme: Dış Aktörlerin Rolü Erkan OKALAN
Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Uluslararası İlişkiler Anabilim Dalı İngilizce Uluslararası İlişkiler Programı
Mısır’daki siyasi liberalleşmenin geliştirilmesi veya engellenmesi üzerinde etkisi olan siyasi kültür, din, sivil toplum ve siyasi ekonomi gibi faktörlerin arasında dış aktörlerin özellikle ABD ve AB’nin rolü önemlidir. Her ne kadar her iki aktör de yardım programları, ikili anlaşmalar, doğrudan verilen hibeler, ortaklık girişimleri, uluslararası finansal örgütler, ortaklık anlaşmaları, eylem planları, ve komşuluk politikaları ile Mısır’daki siyasi liberalleşmeyi ve demokratikleşmeyi desteklemelerine rağmen pek başarılı olamamaktadırlar.
Aslında her iki aktörde bu politikaları aracılığı ile Mısır’daki liberalleşmeyi desteklemek yerine engellemekte ve siyasi liberalleşme faaliyetlerini tersine çevirmektedirler. ABD ve AB’nin tüm bu çabalarına rağmen Mısır’daki siyasi liberalleşmeyi geliştirememelerinin nedeni incelemek bu tezin konusunu ve araştırma sorusunu oluşturmaktadır. Bu soruya cevap bulabilmek amacıyla tez karşılaştırmalı siyasetin iki yaklaşımından yapısal yaklaşım ve rasyonel seçim yaklaşımından yararlanacaktır. Tez bu analizi yapabilmek amacıyla öncelikle yapısal yaklaşım yardımıyla ABD’nin yardım kuruluşlarından Amerikan Uluslararası Gelişme Ajansı’nın yapısını ve de AB’nin karar alma mekanizmalarını (özellikle dış politika kararları konusunda üyeleri arasındaki çatışmaları) inceleyecektir. Daha sonra da rasyonel seçim yaklaşımı ile iki ana aktörün ABD ve AB’nin kendilerine sunulan bir grup alternatiften hangisini seçtiği konusunda karar almalarını etkileyen faktörleri inceleyecektir.
vii
Anahtar Kelimeler: Mısır siyaseti, siyasi liberalleşme, demokratikleşme, demokrasi teşviki, dış aktörler, AB, ABD, yapısal yaklaşım ve rasyonel seçim yaklaşımı.
viii
POLITICAL LIBERALIZATION IN EGYPT: THE IMPACT OF EXTERNAL ACTORS TABLE OF CONTENTS APPROVAL PAGE ii DECLARATION iii ABSTRACT iv ÖZET vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS viii
ABBREVIATIONS xi
INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER 1
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: THE IMPACT OF EXTERNAL ACTORS ON POLITICAL LIBERALIZATION
I. CONCEPTS OF DEMOCRACY, DEMOCRATIZATION, AND POLITICAL
LIBERALIZATION 4
A. Democracy 5
B. Democratization 7
C. Political Liberalization 11
II. FACTORS LEADING TO POLITICAL DE/LIBERALIZATION: EXTERNAL
ACTORS 14
A. Political Culture and Islam 14
B. Civil Society 16
C. Political Economy 19
D. External Actors 22
1. The United States and the European Union 24
ix
CHAPTER 2
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF THE IMPACT OF EXTERNAL ACTORS ON POLITICAL DE/LIBERALIZATION IN EGYPT
I. LIMITED POLITICAL LIBERALIZATION DURING THE COLONIAL
PERIOD 29
II. POLITICAL DE/LIBERALIZATION UNDER NASSER’S LEADERSHIP 30
III. POLITICAL REFORM TACTICS DURING SADAT’S ERA 33
IV. ATTEMPTS FOR POLITICAL OPENINGS AND ECONOMIC
LIBERALIZATION DURING MUBARAK ERA 37
A. Economic Liberalization Attempts under Mubarak: Privatization 37
B. Democratic Opening Attempts Under Mubarak: Constitutional
Amendments 38
CHAPTER 3
THE IMPACT OF EXTERNAL ACTORS ON POLITICAL LIBERALIZATION IN EGYPT
I. POLICIES FOLLOWED BY THE USA AND THE EU TOWARDS POLITICAL
LIBERALIZATION IN EGYPT 44
A. The Efforts of the USA for Political Liberalization in Egypt 46
1. The USAID and Bilateral Agreements and Direct Grants
Programs 48
2. The Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI) and the Middle East
Transition Office 50
3. The Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative (BMENA) 52
4. The US-led International Financial Institutions 53
B. The Efforts of the EU for Political Liberalization in Egypt 54
1. Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (EMP) 55
2. EU-Egypt Association Agreement 56
x 4. European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) and European Neighborhood
Partnership Instrument (ENPI) 59
CHAPTER 4
PARADOXICAL IMPACTS OF EXTERNAL ACTORS ON POLITICAL (DE)LIBERALIZATION IN EGYPT
I. THE FAILURE OF THE US’s POLICIES FOR POLITICAL LIBERALIZATION
IN EGYPT 64
A. Structural Problems 64
B. Priorities and Intention of the United States Government 66
C. The Impact of US-led International Financial Institutions 70
II. FAILURE OF THE EU’s POLICIES FOR POLITICAL LIBERALIZATION IN
EGYPT 73
A. Structural Problems of the EU 73
B. Conflicting National Policies of the EU Members 76
C. Imbalance of EU’s Foreign Assistance 77
D. Intention of the EU’s Foreign Assistance 78
CONCLUSION 82
xi
ABREVIATIONS
BMENA Broader Middle East and North Africa Initiative
CFSP Common Foreign and Security Policy
EBRD European Bank for Reconstruction and Development
EC European Community
EMP Middle East Partnership Initiative
ENP European Union’s Neighborhood Policy
ENPI European Neighborhood Partnership Instrument
EU The European Union
G8 The Group of Eight
GDP Gross Domestic Product
IMF International Monetary Fund
MEDA Mediterranean-European Development Agreement
MENA Middle East and North Africa
MEPI Middle East Partnership Initiative
NATO North Atlantic Treaty Organization
NDP National Democratic Party
NIP National Indicative Program
OSCE Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe SPRING Support for Partnership, Reform and Inclusive Growth TACIS Technical Aid to the Commonwealth of Independent State
UN The United Nations
UNEF United Nations Emergency Force
US The United States of America
USA The United States of America
USAID United States Agency for International Development
1
INTRODUCTION
Although many Latin American, East Asian and almost all of the Eastern European countries have completed their democratic transitions throughout the 1980s and 1990s, the Middle Eastern countries are still ruled by authoritarian regimes today. Even some African countries have already achieved at least their electoral democracy; the Middle Eastern region is still engaged with fluctuations between political liberalization attempts which refer only some temporary political openings and ongoing authoritarian regime. Although currently as a result of the Arab Spring there are dramatic developments towards democratization in the region, currently, it is too early to make an interpretation or analysis on whether these movements bring democracy to the region or not.
In this context, Egypt represents a crucial example that has experienced numerous political fluctuations between political liberalization and its authoritarian regime. Since the 1970s although Egypt has experienced a number of political openings, almost all of them were repeatedly resulted with the political de-liberalization policies due to the authoritarian characteristic of its regime. Currently, Egypt has been going through dramatic changes towards democratization as a result of Arab Spring that has started as a strong social unrest in February 2011. Egyptian people have managed to remove Mubarak’s government from the political office. General elections that had been taking place in the last couple of months resulted with the election of the Mohammed Morsi who is a candidate of the Freedom and Justice Party which was established by the Muslim Brotherhood. Consequently, for the first time in Egyptian politics, a candidate from the Islamic movement, the Muslim Brotherhood, became president. However, whether a candidate representing an Islamist movement will move the country towards democratization or not – is not very clear at the moment.
Since the period following the Arab Spring is still an ongoing process (which makes it difficult analyze), this thesis will mainly concentrate on the factors particularly the role of the external actors on the political liberalization process of Egypt throughout the period between 1970s and 2000s. There is a variety of factors including political culture (including Islam), civil society, political economy and
2 external (f)actors that both promote and hinder political liberalization in Egypt. Among these factors this thesis will concentrate on the impact of external actors, namely the USA and EU on the political (de)liberalization process in Egypt. Both actors, the USA and the EU, through the aid programs, bilateral agreements, direct grant programs, partnership initiatives, international financial institutions, association agreements, action plans, and neighborhood policies seem to be working very hard to promote political liberalization and democratization in the MENA region in general and in Egypt in particular. However, despite this enthusiastic looking struggle to bring political liberalization to the region and in particular to Egypt, both actors were not really successful. On the contrary rather than promoting political liberalization in the region, they even hindered this process. Consequently, this research is looking for an answer to this question. Why the USA and the EU despite their enthusiastic efforts to enhance political liberalization in Egypt do not succeed in this process? –is the main puzzle of this thesis, the main question this research is trying to find an answer.
In attempt to do so, the thesis will analyze reasons for this problem through the help of two comparative politics approaches, structural and rational choice approaches. The thesis will first analyze the structure of the aids given by the USA, particularly the USAID (United States Agency for International Development) and the structure of the EU’s decision-making mechanisms by concentrating on the conflicting foreign policies of the member states. Then the thesis will analyze the rational choices of the actors, the USA and the EU—how these actors are making a choice. How these actors among the sets of alternatives are choosing the one that would maximize their interests –will be analyzed.
The first chapter will explain the theoretical framework of the thesis by first examining the concepts of democracy, democratization and political liberalization. Then it will examine the factors such as political culture, civil society and political economy that shape the political liberalization process by mainly concentrating on the impact of external actors on political liberalization. As the second set of theoretical framework the chapter will examine two research traditions of comparative politics, structural approach and the rational choice approach.
3 The second chapter of the thesis will give an overview of historical background of political liberalization movements in Egypt during the rules of President Nasser, Sadat and Mubarak and the impact of external actors on Egyptian politics in general and in the political liberalization movements in particular. The third chapter will concentrate on the policies followed by the two actors the USA and the EU in their attempt to bring political liberalization and/or democracy promotion to the country by concentrating on the aid programs, bilateral agreements, direct grant programs, partnership initiatives, international financial institutions, association agreements, action plans, and neighborhood policies.
The main heart of the thesis, the fourth chapter will mainly concentrate on the puzzle of the thesis. It will search for the reasons and factors that led to the failure of the USA and the EU’s democracy promotion policies by looking at their structures, decision-making mechanisms and the rational choices they make. The thesis will be concluded with a conclusion that will summarize the arguments of the thesis and will attempt to bring new prospects for the future.
4
CHAPTER 1
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK: THE IMPACT OF EXTERNAL ACTORS
ON POLITICAL LIBERALIZATION
In many academic studies of the contemporary era, terms of ‘democracy’, ‘democratization’ and ‘political liberalization’ are frequently used by scholars of the social and political sciences. Sometimes these concepts are used interchangeably with the same meaning which may cause mistakes or deficiencies in the analyses. Consequently, in order to provide a clear explanation, first part of this chapter aims to explain these concepts theoretically. In the second section of the chapter the factors (political culture, political economy, civil society) that shape the political liberalization process will also be analyzed mainly by concentrating on the external actors—as the main subject of this thesis. The third section will analyze the two research traditions in comparative politics, structural approach and rational choice approach that have an important explanatory power in analyzing the reasons for the failure of the external actors in the process of political liberalization in Egypt.
I. CONCEPTS OF DEMOCRACY, DEMOCRATIZATION AND POLITICAL LIBERALIZATION
Political liberalization is actually a process that is a couple of steps behind democratization. It usually includes some democratic openings without reaching to the stage of democratization. Majority of the time political liberalization movements are usually used as instruments by the authoritarian leaders to please the people they rule for short periods of time. Consequently, in order to analyze the concept of political liberalization, it is necessary to examine the concept of democracy and democratization first.
5
A. Democracy
In general, democracy, in its simplest definition, is the right of the people to determine their rulers and/or governors in order to provide accountability for
government’s actions.1
In this respect, fair and competitive elections are essential components for achievement of an electoral democracy. As Rex Brynen and his colleagues describe, political democratization refers ‘an expansion of political participation in such a way as to provide citizens with a degree of real and
meaningful collective control over public policy.’2
This kind of political participation requires fair and regular elections in order to ensure fair political representation of a society. In this sense, Samuel P. Huntington defines regular elections as an important vehicle for not only emergence of democratization, but also removal of the
authoritarianism, as in the case of the third wave of the democratization.3
However, existence of fair and regular elections demonstrates only existence of an electoral democracy and it does not guarantee a sustainable democracy in the long run. In other words, regular elections are vital in terms of the establishment of the electoral democracy, but it does not mean that a free and fair electoral system guarantees a fully democratic political system. Instead, the concept of democracy involves some certain and legally-protected rights and freedoms for citizens and politicians such as freedom of speech and freedom of assembly that make elections
valuable and useful in guaranteeing the democracy in a country.4
In this context, in addition to the electoral democracy, Larry Diamond emphasizes the concept of liberal democracy, by addressing the promotion of rights and freedoms for both individuals and groups, a pluralist civil society, a pluralist party-system, an accountable political structure, an objective and impartial judiciary
system as well as a civil superiority on the military in a country.5 Similarly, by citing
1 Michael J. Sodaro, Comparative Politics: A Global Introduction, McGraw Hill, New York, 2004,
p. 162.
2 Rex Brynen et. al, Political Liberalization & Democratization in the Arab World, Lynne Rienner
Publishers, London, 1995, p. 3.
3
Samuel P. Huntington, The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century, University of Oklahoma Press, Norman and London, 1991, p. 174.
4 Sodaro, p. 162.
5Larry Diamond et. al, Consolidating the Third Wave Democracies: Themes and Perspectives,
6 liberal extent of the concept of democracy, Michael J. Sodaro emphasizes that democracies design some legally certain rights and freedoms for citizens by limiting
government’s authority.6
Sodaro also categorizes ‘the four faces of democracy’ in order to give a full definition of the concept. In this categorization he includes basic principles of democracy such as the concept of popular sovereignty, some certain rights and liberties, democratic values and the economic democracy. According to this categorization, ‘the concept of popular sovereignty’ refers the right of entire society to govern themselves that makes the government accountable to the citizens. By considering etymon of the literal sense of democracy derives from a combination of Greek words ‘demos’ that means the people, and ‘kratia’ that means authority, popular sovereignty is indispensable component of the democracy.
Moreover, citizens must be possess ‘some certain rights and liberties’, as the
second face of democracy, which are protected by law.7 In this point, it is important
to note that granting of these rights and liberties to the people is not sufficient alone. In other words, protection of them is important for their sustainability in the long run. As Nora Hamilton and Eun Mee Kim claim that democracy requires a two-level change: first change is at societal level which redefines some certain individual rights and freedoms in order to protect citizens and social groups from illegal acts; and the second change is at the governmental level which redefines governmental rules and procedures in order to prevent any feasible exclusion of some groups in political participation process via newly constructed government institutions.
Furthermore, ‘democratic values’ such as fairness, compromise and tolerance must be protected as the third face of democracy and these values must be valid for entire society. In addition to rights and liberties of citizens, this face of democracy provides a normative dimension. Namely, even if there are some formally granted certain rights and liberties for citizens, there is still a need for guaranteeing of equally
implementation of these rights for all people.8
Finally, ‘economic democracy’ must be effective for all society as fourth face of democracy in socio-economic means. In general, economic democracy is related
6 Sodaro, p. 162. 7 Sodaro, p. 164. 8 Sodaro, p. 174.
7 with a fair opportunity in economic life for citizens in a country. As such, economic democracy requires a governmental permission for all citizens as well as private
corporations to run their businesses.9
In the light of these four faces, democracy is based on three principles such as ‘the rule of law’ that limits the state’s power by law and denies anyone above the law; ‘inclusion’ that assumes all democratic rights and freedoms for entire society, not a specific segment of the society; and ‘equality’ that commits equal distribution of democratic rights and freedoms by denying any privileged groups on these rights and freedoms in the society. However, as Sodaro emphasizes, existence of these four faces of democracy does not provide a certain fixed definition of democracy because countries may implement these faces or criteria at minimum or at maximum levels,
but not at an equally same level.10 Thus, it must be note that the concept of
democracy is not fixed, but rather it can be interpreted differently by various countries in practice.
B. Democratization
An important issue that should be studied concerning democracy is the transition of the countries from a non-democratic regime to a democratic one, in other words democratization. They can do this by getting rid of all rules and institutions of the old regime and adapting newly constructed ones. However, even if a transition process from authoritarianism to democratization has been successfully started in a country, consolidation of a newly-built democracy is not an easy change that could be achieved overnight and thus it takes up a long time. Therefore, the transitions are not always successful. As Sodaro notes, society may be divided on important questions about democracy because while some segments of society is interested in only freedom-based democracy in liberal means, the others may rather
focus on social and economic rights and welfare in social democratic means.11
Consequently, the division in the society on the question of what democracy
9 Sodaro, p. 164, 178. 10 Sodaro, pp. 165-168. 11 Sodaro, p. 163, 207.
8 requires, prevents the creation of a fixed definition of a successful democracy and
forces democracy to take different forms in itself.12
In international context, regional differences about democratization process also represent a crucial perspective for interpretation of its scope around the world. In his famous study, The Third Wave that was published in 1991, Samuel Huntington explains historical evolution of democratization with three waves of democratic transition. In this analysis he also examines the reverse waves, in which
democratization movements reversed to authoritarian regimes. 13
According to Huntington’s analysis, first wave of democratization that had its roots in American and French revolutions showed itself mainly in the nineteenth century when secret ballot and government that is accountable to the parliament had taken place. However, starting in the aftermath of First World War first reverse wave had showed itself with the resurgence of Mussolini and Hitler’s fascist governments in Italy and Germany respectively. Second reverse wave that immediately followed Second World War reintroduced democracy in various countries such as Italy, Germany, Japan, Korea, Greece and Turkey and ended around the beginning of 1960s. The third and the last wave of democratization that has emerged with the collapse of dictatorship in Portugal in 1974 spread to various European, Asian and Latin American countries. Third wave of democratization has gained a considerable momentum after collapse of the Soviet Union in 1989 that paved the way for
transition of various former Soviet Republics toward democracy.14
However, transitions form a non-democratic regime to a democratic regime have not always ended up with the consolidation of democracy, While some of these countries in a short time finished their transition process moving to a consolidated democracies, the others have never reached to that level and have stayed in the transition stage for decades. Although democracies serve to provide a fair sphere for all segments of the society to participate the political life in a country, they can not always be successful to fulfill their purposes. Namely, even if all democratic rules and procedures are accomplished in a country, manipulation and negligence of
12
Carsten Q. Schneider and Philippe C. Schmitter, “Liberalization, Transition and Consolidation: Measuring the Components of Democratization”, Democratization, Vol: 11, No: 5, 2004, p. 64.
13 Huntington, pp. 16-21. 14 Huntington, pp. 16-21.
9 democratic institutions by state elites still continue to be an obstacle to the completion of democratic objectives. Manipulation of democratic practices and institutions has also a potential to reduce political participation because it undermines citizens’ belief about their influence on the political life. Consequently, it creates a social feeling that their votes are not influent in shaping of political life of the country and therefore, it is resulted with the emergence of social apathy about politics.15
In this context, Juan Linz and Alfred Stepan define democratic consolidation as a framework in which democracy is internalized and routinized in all parts of social, institutional, political as well as psychological life in a particular society. In this framework, Linz and Stepan categorize the main dimensions of democratic consolidation such as behavioral, attitudinal and constitutional which are necessary for complementation of it. Namely, behavioral dimension of consolidation can be fulfilled when social, economic, or political actors give up using main societal resources in order to create and maintain a non-democratic system in a particular territory. Attitudinal dimension of democratic consolidation can be achieved when a belief is emerged in public opinion that democratic institutions and procedures are
the best and unique way to manage collective life in the society. 16
Moreover, restrictive role of democracy on the state’s superior power may be prevented by becoming the subject of a political corruption. For instance, bureaucratic institutions may possess an incredible authority which has never been checked or political parties and elites may be financed by some donor actors in political process. In such cases, success of democracy is prevented by corruption under a patron-client relationship in political life. In this context, Linz and Stepan emphasize the importance of a constitutional dimension of democratic consolidation that can only be achieved when there are no any important differences between governmental and non-governmental forces and when these are used for conflict
15
Sodaro, p. 163.
16 Juan J. Linz and Alfred Stepan, Problems of Democratic Transition And Consolidation:
Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe, The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London, 1996, pp. 5-6.
10 resolution in a framework of laws, legal procedures, and new democratic institutions.17
Actually, however, Linz and Stepan do not claim that there are no any conflicts in consolidated democracies. Instead, they try to emphasize that while possibility of conflict is still continuing, this possibility is reduced to a minimum degree through existence of legitimate conflict resolution ways of democracy. Similarly, Diamond tries to call attention to important difficulties of internalization of democratization process in some particular countries. For instance, Western European countries are more likely to internalize this process than Eastern European ones. Similarly, proportions of democratization in Middle-Eastern and African regions are considerably less than European world. Diamond explains the main reason of these regional differences about democratization between liberal and wealthy Western societies and illiberal and poor ones with the absence of consolidation in latter that is a vital component for future survival and stability of a newly-built democracy. Thus, addressing the previous two reverse waves of democratization, Diamond emphasizes the possibility of a third reverse wave of the current global democratization because of ongoing human rights violations and
insecure social, economic, and political conditions in non-democratic countries.18
Therefore, every single movement of transition from an authoritarian regime to democratic regime do not end up with a consolidated democracy. Majority of the time these transitions never reach to a consolidation level. If we go a couple of steps back some of the democratic openings and liberalization movements do not even reach to the transition level. They remain as partial democratic openings which cannot even move to the stage of a democratization or transition to democracy level. These movements that mainly take place in the African, Middle Eastern and some Asia countries are usually defined as “political liberalization”. Most of the time these political liberalization movements are used as an instrument by the authoritarian leaders to keep their illegitimate powers vis-à-vis some partial unrests in the community.
17 Linz and Stepan, pp. 5-6. 18 Diamond et. al, pp. 15-16.
11
C. Political Liberalization
Political liberalization is an indispensable component of democratization of an authoritarian regime. It can be defined as the step before democratization. As stated by Hamilton and Kim political liberalization is a vital component for democratization in expanding democratic developments such as equality before the
law, right of equal political participation, and a free and an informed citizenry.19
Similarly, Brynen and his colleagues describe the concept of political liberalization as ‘the expansion of public space through the recognition and protection of civil and political liberties, particularly those bearing upon the ability of citizens to engage in
free political discourse and to freely organize in pursuit of common interests.’20
Although political liberalization and democratization can be seen as two linked concepts towards to the completion of a country’s democratic consolidation, they do have differences. Thus, the question of which conditions are influential in political liberalization and democratization process of a country needs to be answered for a theoretical explanation of these concepts. In this context, elements of these two concepts can be useful in order to understand the difference between them. Political liberalization, as Linz and Stepan define, refers some important political and societal changes such as reduction of pressure on the media, release of politically arrested persons, re-definition of income distribution, toleration of opposition groups and parties, new improvements for protection of the certain rights of all citizens.
From this perspective, democratization includes political liberalization in itself but, its content is wider than political liberalization. In democratization, in addition to political liberalization attempts, there are publicly open debates over a societal control on the government, and of course a fair electoral system through
legally recognized competitive political parties.21 In other words, as Linz and Stepan
argue, that political liberalization can exist without democratization, while
democratization can not exist without a politically liberalized governmental system.22
19
Nora Hamilton and Eun Mee Kim, “Economic and Political Liberalization in South Korea and Mexico”, Third World Quarterly, Vol: 14, No: 1, 1993, p. 112.
20 Brynen et. al, p. 3. 21 Linz and Stepan, p. 3. 22 Linz and Stepan, p. 3.
12 However, Brynen and his colleagues claim that elements of democratization may exist without political liberalization or vice versa. In other words, they point out that both of the concepts may exist in a particular political system independently from each other. For example, regular elections that represent the main component of the concept of democracy can take place, together with a limited political repression or electoral fraud as in the case of many authoritarian regimes. In this context, however, as Brynen and his colleagues state political participation cannot be effective for citizens without existence of an everlasting system of political freedom that is the main linkage between political liberalization and democracy. Consequently, it is clear that democracies do not have to be similar to each other under a unique model such as Western liberal democracies, but rather, they are
shaped by specific historical and cultural elements of different countries.23
Moreover, political liberalization can be realized not only in political area, but also social and economic spheres. For instance, it may include some social openings that are given for citizens by their government such as educational reforms, occupational reforms, developments in social security means, and new progressive legal regulations about fundamental rights and freedoms. In this sense, by addressing necessary developments in social regulations, Schmeider and Schmitter emphasize that, political liberalization includes prevention of torture and inhuman treatment, promotion of the fair trial according to laws, guaranteeing of the freedom of speech, freedom of religious conviction, freedom from punishment for oppositional expressions against governmental policy, and removal of censorship on
communication.24
In addition to these social developments, the concept of political liberalization can be realized in economic means. In this context, a link can be established between economic face of democracy and the concept of political liberalization. Namely, as it mentioned before, economic face of democracy requires consideration of a fair distribution of opportunities in economic life. Similarly, the political liberalization can include economic reforms such as new progressive regulations in distribution of wealth and wages, enterprises to reduce the gap
23 Brynen et. al, p. 4.
13 between rich and poor by creating a middle class, and new developments to promoting life standards of citizens.
Although, the concept of political liberalization is frequently addressed as an indispensable component for democratization of a country in political, social as well as economic means, it has also been used for political interests by leaders in domestic politics, and super powers in international politics at various times of political history. This represents the main paradox of the concept of political liberalization.
As Niblock argues removal of a possible communist threat together with collapse of the Soviet Union forced the Western powers to find a justification for imposing Western-style regime characteristics and restricting political freedoms in newly independent countries. Therefore, they used political liberalization in order to diverse public attention and to impose Western-style economic policies in these newly-independent countries. In other words, political liberalization has become an instrument of the Western powers that was used to achieve their economic interests
through international financial institutions.25 Thus, despite its strong consistence with
the democracy, it may also serve for survival of the authoritarian regimes when they were used as a temporary tool by political leaders in authoritarian countries.
For instance, as Larry Diamond emphasizes, when opposition starts to grow as seriously and effectively to challenge the authoritarian government, the regime starts to apply heavy methods to rig the elections, to arrest members of the opposition
groups and to narrow the political area.26 Therefore, political liberalization can be
failed by repressive rules and policies of existing regime. Consequently, this kind of political liberalization attempt is actually resulted with the emergence of political de-liberalization which is completely opposite of democratic institutions such as a free civil society, free and fair elections or other sustainable democratic openings. These temporary attempts of political liberalization which are applied by political leaders of authoritarian countries actually serve for suppression of political and/or civil oppositions to the ruling regime. They do not really aim for bringing a political liberalization or sustainable democratic opening.
25
Tim Niblock, “Democratization: A Theoretical and Practical Debate”, British Journal of Middle Eastern Studies, Vol: 25, No: 2, 1998, p. 222.
26 Larry Diamond. “Why Are There No Arab Democracies?”, Journal of Democracy, Vol: 21, No: 1,
14
II. FACTORS LEADING TO POLITICAL DE/LIBERALIZATION:
EXTERNAL ACTORS
As already stated for the authoritarian leaders to attempt to liberalize their countries politically, certain pressure must come from their people or from the international community. Once leaders find their post in danger as a result of these pressures, then they would initiate certain reforms to avoid this threat. Certain factors can force the authoritarian leaders for political liberalization and at the same time hinder the process. Among these one can include political culture and Islam particularly in the Arab world, civil society, political economy, and external factors/actors.
A. Political Culture and Islam
Culture is a significant factor that can both enhance and impede the political liberalization process. Every society has its own peculiar culture that is embedded into its societal, economic, psychological and political life. There are some particular attitudinally different characteristics between cultures around the world. Cultural dimension as a result create a crucial perspective to analyze political choices and behaviors of different countries and their leaders. As Sodaro claims, cultural attitudes have a considerably important role in shaping democratic stability in a particular country. The concept of political culture refers a pattern of shared attitudes and values in history of the political life of a country with its political institutions as well as political procedures. Even existence of an active civil society in a country depends
on political culture which is a kind of social link in political life of a country.27 From
this perspective, political culture of a country includes and shapes structuring of that country’s state institutions which play a considerably important role in democratization process.
Political culture actually explains the difference between the state institutions of countries very well. For instance, while political culture of many Western
15 European countries can be defined with liberal values, political culture of the Middle East is defined with a more conservative and religious Islamic terms. The liberal values of the Western political culture usually include popular sovereignty, civil liberties and political rights. Their state institutions in general guarantee an independent judiciary, a legally bounded bureaucracy, an effective law-making process, a transparent governing process for citizens, and a competitive system of
regular elections.28 In these countries, the chances to consolidate democracy are
higher. However, in the countries where a liberal political culture lacks and conservativeness and religion dominate the political life, democratization and democratic consolidation turn into difficult processes to accomplish. The primordial characteristics of the Middle East that is based on tribal, clan and sectarian features which denies pluralism under a concept of common citizenship are also shown as
obstacles to political liberalization.29
Diamond argues that absence of a culturally single democratic regime in the Arab World is an anomaly that makes the region an exception for democratization of
global world.30 In this sense, there is a general prejudice in the scholarly written
research about failed democratization of the Islamic/Arab countries that puts forward the incompatibility between democratic principles and Islamic political culture in the Arab world. Compatibility of Islam with democracy is another issue of discussion that is beyond the subject of this chapter. In brief, there are debates that argue both the compatibility and the incompatibility of the two concepts. While democracy refers to popular sovereignty, an Islamic rule refers to Allah’s sovereignty as the basic tenet of Islam. Namely, since Islamists believe that Allah is the single creator of all things in the earth, Allah’s sovereignty in all kinds of life is more superior than any other Western definitions of sovereignty. In this sense, while Islamists define sovereignty of Allah as the most just and true method of management, they define Western kinds of sovereignty as illegitimate, unjust, and corrupted one. In a state that is mainly ruled according to the rules of Islam, there is no separation between
28 Sodaro, p. 210. 29 Brynen et. al, p. 7. 30 Diamond, p. 93.
16
religious and state affairs.31 Moreover, the isolation of some groups in the Islamic
world such as women or religious minority groups can also be shown as an evidence for existence of inequality in the Islamic world which is the main challenge to
democratization.32
Some scholars argue that political culture by itself does not have an explanatory power to political de-liberalization since they can change in time. Modernization reforms such as urbanization, changes in economic policies, educational developments or inclusion of democratic values from the West may lead to a transformation of the political culture, Although there is a general consensus that a culture of a country has an impact on its political life, some scholars claims that political context has also a similar impact on the culture that assume a democratization process as the facilitator of emergence of a new democratic political
culture after an authoritarian one.33
For instance, Diamond claims that emergence of a democratic political culture is closely related with the democratic consolidation because a democratic political culture is created and supported by democratic state institutions such as protected certain rights of individuals, a liberalized economic structure, an improved
political accountability, and a governance without corruption.34 Moreover, there is
also a view which puts forward that sometimes political actors may be forced to
follow democratic principles by their electorates under an electoral competition.35
Consequently, the concept of political culture is important as one of the influential factors on the political liberalization, but not a unique one itself alone.
B. Civil Society
Existence of a vibrant civil society plays a significant role in the political liberalization process. In general, civil society is an autonomously organized population into the associations in a country. In this context, Linz and Stepan call
31Nicola Pratt, “Identity, Culture and Democratization: The Case of Egypt”, New Political Science,
Vol: 27, No: 1, 2005, p. 70.
32
Brynen et. al, p. 7.
33 Brynen et. al, p. 7. 34 Diamond et. al, p. 17. 35 Brynen et. al, p. 7.
17 attention to the difference between the concept of civil society and the concept of political society. According to this distinction, while the concept of civil society refers an area of polity in which there are autonomous and self-organizing individuals, groups and their movements that create some special values and associations such as women’s groups or religious groups; political society refers another area in which polity serves to control state apparatus and public power under a legitimate struggle by constituting society for politically electing and monitoring of a democratic government. From this perspective, while the concept of civil society can be seen as an instrument to destroy an existing non-democratic/authoritarian regime, the concept of political society is seen as another instrument for future
survival of democracy and its’ consolidation.36
Since the general aim of civil society organizations is to build a link between the state and society, existence of ‘an active of civil society that includes self-organizing groups, movements and individuals, which are relatively autonomous
from the state, is essential for the process of political liberalization.’37 Civil society
organizations also include the political parties, business associations, interest groups and religious organizations. Civil society organizations by increasing the political participation in a society represent their vital importance in the democratization
process.38 Civil society organizations by representing interests of various segments
of the society in political election process, promotes confidence of the society to the system of holding regular elections that automatically brings into a high level political participation.
Brynen and his colleagues analyze the concept of civil society by referring to three different dimensions that explain their characteristics. As the first dimension, Brynen et. al mention the organizational characteristics of the civil society that serves to counterweight the state’s power by establishing a buffer zone between state and the citizens. For instance, protests of an organized civil society group against coercive policies of a ruling authoritarian government can be effective to force the government for political openings. Consequently, existence of an independently
36 Linz and Stepan, pp. 7-8.
37 Müge Aknur and İrem Aşkar Karakır, “The Reversal of Political Liberalization in Egypt”, Ege
Academic Review, Vol:7, No:1, 2007, p. 320.
18 organized population proves the existence of a democracy with respect to a limited state control on rights and liberties. As the second dimension, the scholars point out the civility of civil society that focuses on the establishment of a moderate and tolerant political structure under the view of pluralistic discourse. Namely, guaranteeing a pluralistic political structure facilitates the democratization and a sustainable political liberalization on issues such as freedom of associations. Third dimension of civil society is a qualitative relationship between state and the society which emphasizes the principle of individuality or citizenship. For instance, re-definition of state-society relations promotes the importance of societal demands
under a much more democratic political structure. 39
According to Brynen et. al., three different dimensions of the concept of civil society become effective mutually in promoting societal interests under a framework of democratic values. It means that all three dimensions of the civil society concept such as social organization, civility that is based on a set of ideas and a new qualitative relationship between state and citizens are vital components for the emergence of a civil society in an authoritarian regime during its democratization process. However, although these dimensions represent necessary parts of civil society organizations, they also include some ambiguities. Namely, organizational dimension may refer to an authoritarian characteristic that raises pressures as a
centralized authoritarian organization.40
An active civil society is generally defined as a concept that is more likely to promote tolerance of excluded minority groups like ethnic groups or religious ones by creating a compromise and cooperation with them. Thus, it provides a more open sphere in political life of a country that is essential for democratization. However, contrary to this general definition, the emergence of an authoritarian civil organization serves to sustain and strengthen the presence of ruling authoritarian regime rather than to establish a new democratic one. In this sense, since all independently organized groups may include non-democratic organizations in criminal means, it is important to note that the concept of civil society refers only to
39 Brynen et. al, p. 11. 40 Brynen et. al, pp. 11-12.
19
citizen associations under democratic rules and principles.41 The third dimension also
has an ambiguity in itself due to the lack of a detailed definition for the level of qualitative relationship between state and citizens. It may actually refer a more authoritarian characteristic than its previous one.
All these ambiguities in definition of the concept of civil society become much more important, particularly, in the studies on democratization and political liberalization in the Arab world. These ambiguities of civil society can easily be seen in Arab world as a result of the superiority of well-rooted Islamic principles and history. Failure of civil society concept in the Arab world points out to the family-based, tribal-based or other primordial organizations that create obstacles to the
concept of democratization.42 Mustapha Kamel al-Sayyid argues that the future of
Arab civil society is ambiguous due to its lack of a full pluralist nature as well as the
continuation of authoritarian pressures. 43
However, these characteristics that are related to the political culture of the Arab world does not mean that there had never been any attempts for the emergence of civil society in the region. Indeed, it can be said that authoritarian regimes in the Arab world have frequently initiated some political openings towards to the emergence of a civil society. However, almost all of these attempts have resulted by reversal of the rise of civil society organizations since the actual objective of these authoritarian rulers was to maximize their political interests, particularly during their illegitimate election periods. Civil society organizations were mainly used as instruments by these authoritarian regimes.
C. Political Economy
The concept of political economy had always been a significant issue of debate concerning the relation between the level of socio-economic development and democratization of a country. In this context, the concept of socio-economic development may include several factors of modernization such as reforms in distribution of wealth, educational policies and reforms, guaranteeing adequate life
41 Sodaro, p. 217. 42 Brynen et. al, p. 13. 43 Brynen et. al, p. 13.
20 standards and creation of a growing bourgeoisie. The protection of economic welfare of the society represents a vital component for prevention of any challenge toward the ruling regime. If a regime could not protect the economic welfare level of the society, a social discontent may emerge as a result of the low economic standards and this in turn, may lead to a risk of a wide-range social unrest against the regime. In such cases, as Müge Aknur and İrem Aşkar Karakır emphasize ruling regime to protect its existence initiates some political reforms in order to divert public attention
from economic depreciation.44 In other words, rigid economic pressures of
superpowers and international financial institutions generally push these regimes into the economic problems such as low wages, high degree of inflation and unemployment. As a response these regimes try to initiate some temporary political openings as in the case of Egyptian president Sadat’s open-door policy during
1970s.45 Since these openings are temporary and artificial, they do not help the
political liberalization process or democratization of these countries.
If democracy fails to overcome the existing poverty, the disadvantaged or excluded groups, start supporting the anti-democratic movements as it has happened
in Latin America, Asia and Africa.46 Consequently, it can be stated that political,
economic and social welfare of the society is an indicator for survival of a democracy in the long run, respect with achievement of the popular support.
In the case of Arab world, the concept of political economy becomes a complex issue due to the presence of rentier states in the region. In the oil rich Arab countries, the ruling elite and the state own the oil and distribute its benefits to the people. By giving the chance to live in welfare to the people, they can easily continue their authoritarian rule. As pointed out by Brynen et. al. rentier characteristic of oil-owner Arab countries serves not only to promote authority of the state over financial resources, but also to support continuation of neo-patrimonial networks in politics that is generally based on a family, a tribe or a superior group of ruling elites. As it is identified by scholars as ‘no taxation, no representation’, while in democratic countries taxation serves as a right for citizens to participate in political life, in rentier states such kind of representation is not granted to the citizens since they do
44Aknur and Karakır, p. 324. 45 Aknur and Karakır, p. 324. 46 Sodaro, p. 215.
21
not pay taxes.47 Under these conditions, superiority of the government in controlling
the financial resources undermines possibility of democratization in the Arab context.
Another significant issue concerning the impact of political economy on political liberalization is related to the financial aids Arab countries receive from external actors. Brynen et. al. note that structural adjustment policies of super powers may force authoritarian regimes to adopt new economic reforms that would not
support state-led economy and force these countries to liberalize their economies.48
In this sense, many studies generally put forward that economically capitalized countries are more likely to achieve democratization compared to the countries whose economies are controlled by the government.
This perspective emphasizes the importance of the absence of a government control over the economy in democratization process, and brings out private enterprise under a capitalist economic structure. However, capitalist economy does not always lead to the democratization but it may rather hinder the democratization, as in the case of many Latin American countries such as Brazil and Mexico as well as in Asian ones such as the Philippines and Singapore that challenged to
democratization despite their high degree of private enterprise.49 In this sense, Linz
and Stepan suggest a crucial argument which emphasizes that a democratic consolidation can be achieved by an effective state for institutionalization of economic conditions for society because neither command economy in which state unquestionably holds all economic policies and property, nor fully pure economy in which society is under the risk of international market swings, are compatible with a
modern consolidated democracy concept.50 Consequently, existence of an effective
democratic government is vital for economic dimension of a modern democratic consolidation.
47
Brynen et. al, p. 15.
48 Brynen et. al, p. 17. 49 Sodaro, pp. 214-215. 50 Linz and Stepan, pp. 11-13.
22
D. External Actors
The external environment might have a significant impact on the political liberalization process of a country. The external environment may include both international factors such as international structure (globalization), and wars that shape the world history; and external actors such as superpowers that are influential on other states’ political decision-making processes (such as the US and the Soviet Union during the Cold War), international organizations, (such as the EU), international financial institutions (such as IMF and World Bank) and the international media. Both international/external factors and actors have a mixed potential to create a positive and even a negative impact on the democratization process of a country.
International structure can be seen as an influential factor in the democratization process of an authoritarian country. As Brynen et. al. note that while globalization is represented as a facilitator factor for democratization thanks to its role in removing international barriers, promoting the information flow around the world and supporting the movements of democracy against authoritarian regimes; it may also strengthen the authoritarian regimes by causing a societal reaction of
existing ruling regime against the new democratic one.51 Similarly, during the Cold
War period, the Communist threat forced many countries to strengthen its democratic institutions. However, at the same time the Communist countries that identified democracy with the capitalist world disliked the whole concept.
As an external factors as Sodaro points out a war may create both negative and positive effects for the democratization process of a country. For instance, while a war requires a strong leadership as well as overwhelming limitations on democratic institutions like freedom of press or freedom of public expression, it may also produces democratization as in the case of the World War II when the winners of the
war forced the losers to democratize.52
In addition as an external factor, the media provides a world-wide information network that is available for all societies around the world. Since
51 Brynen et. al, p. 19. 52 Sodaro, p. 219.
23 availability of information about politics is important for societal awareness of political decisions of the government, media has an important role to promote democratic institutions and values in the political liberalization process of a country. However, this availability of information about politics may serve not only to democratization, but also supporters of existing authoritarian regime in a country. While the existence of global media may play a facilitator role for the removal of authoritarian and violent pressures of a government by providing a social awareness in both domestic as well as international area, it may also serve to the advantages of other pro-authoritarian groups in the society. As Hamilton and Kim argue opposition groups may turn the existence of a global media into their advantage to destroy the
government in democratization process.53
Similarly, external actors such as the superpowers like the US and international financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank as well as international organizations like the European Union (EU) and the United Nations (UN) all have important roles in shaping democratization and political liberalization process of a country. However, these external actors have also a mixed potential to create both positive as well as negative impact on democratization process of a country.
Although policies of international financial institutions such as IMF and World Bank seem to be supporting the political liberalization in the third world countries, their rigid economy policies create serious economic problems that undermines democratization process of a country. Although international financial institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank and other international organizations such as the EU and the UN insist on the democracy promotion in the developing states as a conditionality for economic assistance or full membership, their rigid policies and real intentions (caring about their economic or security interests over the democratization of these countries) may push democratizing countries into the process political de-liberalization.
24
1. The United States and the European Union
Huntington points out the positive impact of both European Community and the USA on the third wave of democratizations that have started in mid-1970s. He argues that the the third wave of democratization can not be explained without consideration of the EU’s contributions to facilitate the promotion of democratization in South and Eastern Europe, and the US’s efforts to impose democratization in
several ways in the Latin America and Asia.54
US democracy promotion policy has started in 1970s together with the legalization of the prohibition of human rights violations by the Congress in 1974. Once human rights became the main center of the US foreign policy starting with the Carter Administration in 1977 and continuing with Reagan Administration, the US governments have widened scope of the foreign policy concerning human rights by challenging the violations in Asian and the Latin American authoritarian regimes as well as communist regimes. Throughout 1980s, American policy to challenge human rights violations and to spread democratization has not only targeted communist
regimes, but also non-communist dictatorships.55
In this context, by defining itself as the protector of human rights and democratic values around the world, the US government has used several methods in political, economic, military and diplomatic means in order to realize its’ foreign policy objective on spreading democratization globally. US in order to protect the existence of democratic governments in its area of influence, created its National Endowment for Democracy in 1983. However, the USA was not successful in its democracy promotion process in every single country. According to Huntington while the USA succeeded in Chile, Korea, Poland, Taiwan, Portugal and Bolivia, it failed in the Dominican Republic, Grenada, El Salvador, Guatemala, Peru, Ecuador,
Panama, Honduras, Uruguay, and the Philippines.56 Similarly, US efforts for political
liberalization in the Middle East have not been successful.
However, despite Huntington’s positive approach towards USA’s good will to spread democratization in the world, in general majority of the developing
54 Huntington, pp. 86-87. 55 Huntington, p. 92. 56 Huntington, p. 98.
25 countries including the Middle Eastern and North African countries are skeptical about USA’s intentions in its promotion of political liberalization/democratization policies. During the Cold War period, the US’s justification to establish its military bases to the countries that were in danger of Communist threat and were in urgent need for a democratization was met with skepticism. As Hamilton and Kim argue the US’s establishment of its military bases has actually promoted anti-democratic institutions rather than democratic institutions since US government supported
pro-American dictators.57
The European Community during its enlargement throughout 1980s supported democratization in the Southern European applicant countries, namely Greece, Portugal and Spain, which all received full EC membership in the 1980s. The EU takes liberal democracy as its main acceptance condition to qualify a country as a full member. As part of the EU’s political conditionality, each candidate country is obligated to strengthen its democracy in line with liberal democratic values. This has to be done even before the start of negotiations if the country is aiming to become a full member of the Union. Similar political conditions seem to be applied by other international organizations, such as the Council of Europe, NATO, and the OSCE. However, none of them apply them as strict as the EU. The EU’s application criteria are the most rigid. It requires the implementation of political, economic and social rights and benefits for all citizens of candidate countries. The EU also judges these measurements of democracy in the Regular Reports it publishes on candidate countries’ progress toward accession. Consequently, the EU has become increasingly powerful in its impact on democratization and democratic consolidation through its
enlargement policies.58
In the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region and particularly in Egypt both USA and the EU seem to have considerable impact on political liberalization through bilateral agreements, direct grant programs, aids, partnership initiatives, international financial institutions, association agreements, action plans, and neighborhood policies. However, despite these aids, programs, partnerships and
57 Hamilton and Kim, p. 114.
58 Uğur Burç Yıldız, The European Union and the Democratic Consolidation in Europe, the Impacts
amd Limits”, Democratic Consolidation in Turkey, (Ed. Müge Aknur), Universal Publishers, Florida, 2012, pp. 286-287.
